fsi_channel_pressure

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the analytic/no-solver nature, the laminar regime limit (Re ≲ 1400), the default fluid properties, and enumerates the returned fields including warnings and escalate_to. It does not discuss failure/escalation behavior in detail, keeping it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the formula and the key '(NO solver)' qualifier, then adds only supporting context (parameters, regime check, defaults, returns). Dense but every sentence earns its place; slightly formula-heavy for a description field.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the return keys (pressure_pa, reynolds, regime, warnings, escalate_to, etc.), covering what an agent needs to consume the result. Combined with the validity-range note, it is essentially complete for this analytic tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains gap_mm (plate separation), velocity_m_s (mean velocity), length_mm (flow length), and supplies the defaults and physical meaning for mu_pa_s (μ=1e-3) and rho_kg_m3 (ρ=1000). Units are conveyed indirectly, so not fully exhaustive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource (compute plane-channel pressure drop) and gives the exact governing formula Δp = 12·μ·U·L/h². The '(NO solver)' tag and the named downstream consumers (fsi_plate_deflection / fsi_interface_balance) distinguish it cleanly from solver-based channel siblings like cht_channel_submit and cfd_pipe_flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says exactly what role the output plays ('the fluid load that sources the pressure-loaded-plate FSI anchor ... feeds fsi_plate_deflection/fsi_interface_balance as pressure_pa') and gives the validity condition Re ≲ 1400 for the laminar assumption. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for out-of-range (turbulent) cases, so no exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.